# Jeb Bush goes for a repeat of 2000 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 23, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583 "2004-07-23T21:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/121 "2004-07-29T07:55:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fascinating. > > I did find the quote you offer, but dismissed it as utterly useless. And yet you pretended that you had no idea what I was talking about. Typical disingenousness. > [@](#): > > It’s very odd that you empahsized that phrase. Here’s what I focused on, and why I dismissed the quote as useless: > > The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 to limit the political power of freed slaves, are impossible to calculate, **civil rights groups say.** I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion, IF you reject out-of-hand everything that any civil-rights group ever says. I think that shows your bias. > [@](#): > > In essence, this is no more compelling than: > > The social costs of the policy, which was written into the state constitution in 1868 to limit the political power of freed slaves, are impossible to calculate, **blowero** says. Of course it’s more compelling. I ran across the claim again and again as I read articles on the subject. If you’d bother to do a simple google search, you’d see what I mean. If _one_ person says it, it doesn’t mean much, but when many, many people say it, it does. > [@](#): > > There is nothing to indicate what reasons the “civil rights groups” are relying upon to draw this conclusion. There is nothing obvious in the policy that suggests it would limit the rights of former slaves. And since other jurisdictions implemented such policies thirty-some years before slaves were ever freed, it stands to reason that there exist non-racist reasons for such a policy. It stands to reason that because of your [unproven] assertion that _other_ jurisdictions implemeted policies like that before the slaves were freed, that therefore Florida did it for non-racist reasons? Wow - logic doesn’t get much more tortured than that. > [@](#): > > So again I ask for a cite. A cite does not mean other people repeating a baseless assertion: it means some evidence that actually supports the claim. What evidence did the civil rights groups rely upon when they formed this opinion? I gave you a cite, and if you do a simple google search, you will come up with dozens of others. Since you’re going to be willfully obtuse, here’s a further explanation: [http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n098/a04.html?116](http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n098/a04.html?116) > [@](#): > > Florida’s 135-year-old felony disenfranchisement law is rooted in racism. While disenfranchisement laws in Florida constitutions devised before it became a state were primarily aimed at crimes like bribery and perjury, the 1868 felony disenfranchisement law that was enacted after Reconstruction was aimed at seeing to it that the ballot box remained off-limits to newly freed slaves. > > The law worked in tandem with the Black Codes, which virtually criminalized almost every behavior of the former slaves. A black person in Florida, for example, who had no job and no place to live – a condition that was a given for the newly emancipated – could be rounded up and forced into labor for as long as 12 months. > > So the law wasn’t about punishing criminals. It was about keeping former slaves on society’s periphery. > > Then came 1968, the year the felony disenfranchisement law was re- enacted. And while none of the lawmakers who amended it bragged that they were doing it to hurt black people – as a constitutional delegate did 100 years earlier – they didn’t have to. Now, you can continue to dismiss it out-of-hand because it comes from the mouths of civil-rights advocates, but unless you can come up with better cites that prove the 1868 law _wasn’t_ passed for that purpose, you’re just talking out your ass. And BTW, absence of evidence (e.g. "I didn’t see it in the 2 articles I read :rolleyes: ) doesn’t cut it. > [@](#): > > Well, then, I have amply demonstrated that the new policy complies with that law. Not _even_. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/122 "2004-07-29T10:21:35Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > I’m confused. I thought felons lost their voting rights permanently. Depends on the state. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/123 "2004-07-29T15:38:18Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion, IF you reject out-of-hand everything that any civil-rights group ever says. I think that shows your bias. Not at all. I reject anything ANYONE says if it’s not backed up by supporting facts. I’d reject a similar quote from the Sons of the Confederacy, the Republican National Committee, or the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. > [@](#): > > Of course it’s more compelling. I ran across the claim again and again as I read articles on the subject. If you’d bother to do a simple google search, you’d see what I mean. If _one_ person says it, it doesn’t mean much, but when many, many people say it, it does. BWAHAHAHA!! My gosh, you are a simpleton. You have just offered your faith in an exact illustration of _argumentum ad populum_. > [@](#): > > It stands to reason that because of your [unproven] assertion that _other_ jurisdictions implemeted policies like that before the slaves were freed, that therefore Florida did it for non-racist reasons? Wow - logic doesn’t get much more tortured than that. I agree that my assertion that other jurisdictions did it earlier is unproven. But it’s easy to prove. > [@](#): > > Article II, § 1 [of the Virginia Constitution] mandates the automatic loss of voting rights by persons convicted of a felony, the origin of which first appeared in the 1830 Constitution. Howard E. Hill, Comments, Rights of the Convicted Felon on Parole, 13 U. Rich. L. Rev. 367, 367 (1979). I trust you don’t need a cite for the proposition that slavery was still legal in 1830, and wasn’t outlawed in Virginia until the Civil War and the 13th Amendment settled the issue. > [@](#): > > [US FL: Column: How Bush Can Truly Help Prisoners Turn Life](http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n098/a04.html?116) From that very cite: > [@](#): > > _While disenfranchisement laws in Florida constitutions devised before it became a state were primarily aimed at crimes like bribery and perjury_, the 1868 felony disenfranchisement law that was enacted after Reconstruction was aimed at seeing to it that the ballot box remained off-limits to newly freed slaves. So certain felons were disenfranchised before 1868, and there is no allegation that this action was racial in nature. > [@](#): > > Now, you can continue to dismiss it out-of-hand because it comes from the mouths of civil-rights advocates, but unless you can come up with better cites that prove the 1868 law _wasn’t_ passed for that purpose, you’re just talking out your ass. And BTW, absence of evidence (e.g. "I didn’t see it in the 2 articles I read :rolleyes: ) doesn’t cut it. I never dismissed it out of hand because it came from civil-rights advocates. I dismissed it because it was an unsupported assertion. Now, despite the fact that this latest cite acknowledges that certain felonies disenfranchised people without any racial overtones, it also makes a specific case for the current law being racially-based. Unlike the previous cites you offer, this one actually offers historical evidence – the “Black Codes” that allegedly were passed in conjunction with this law and aimed primarily at black would-be voters. This is - take some notes here, because it’s a process you seem utterly confused by - an actual example of a citation that supports the point. More compelling still is a later sentence from your cite: > [@](#): > > Then came 1968, the year the felony disenfranchisement law was re- enacted. And while none of the lawmakers who amended it bragged that they were doing it to hurt black people – _as a constitutional delegate did 100 years earlier_ – they didn’t have to. That’s a pretty strong claim in support of the idea that the 1868 version of the law was, in fact, intended to hinder former slaves from voting. While it’s not proof, it’s strong enough that I regard the burden is now shifted to me to DISprove the law’s origins are rooted in racism. But let’s review your original sentence, the one that sparked this foray into history: > [@](#): > > The only reason they don’t [let felons vote] is because of a 19th century law designed to keep former slaves from voting. There are two claims there: one, that the law was designed to keep former slaves from voting, and two: that that motive is the only reason the law exists. I agree that you’ve made your case with respect to claim one. But since other states also disenfranchise felons, and did so well before slavery could have been a motive, since Florida itself disenfranchised certain felons before the slavery issue reared its head, I don’t agree that the only possible reason they continue the process is born of racial animus. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/124 "2004-07-29T20:30:17Z")
Y’know, Bricker - I started reading your post, fully intending to respond, but you’re being such a condescending asshole that it really just makes me not want to bother. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583/125 "2004-07-29T20:38:19Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Y’know, Bricker - I started reading your post, fully intending to respond, but you’re being such a condescending asshole that it really just makes me not want to bother. That certainly strengthens your position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeb-bush-goes-for-a-repeat-of-2000/256583.md?page=6)